2012 election post-mortem
I was amazed at the breadth and depth of the Democratic
victory this election cycle. From the
local elections of John Garamendi and Lois Wolk, the new Democratic
Supermajority in the California Assembly and Senate, the gains in the U.S.
House and Senate, to of course, the resounding re-election of President Obama,
moderate Democrats won big. The
Republicans experienced a similar, happy election in 2010 and used their
victories as a mandate to move their party to the extreme right. I hope that the Democrats learned from that
Republican mistake and resist the temptation of extremist radicalization of
their party. In my opinion, this year most
American voters were simply trying to find a sensible, middle ground and the
Democratic Party candidates came closer to that point than the
Republicans. Obviously, America's
political sweet spot lies somewhere near the middle, not at the fringe.
As we have seen in a recent
Daily Republic articles and editorial cartoons, right-wing pundits like Bill
O'Reilly have claimed that Republicans lost because America, sadly, has
gone from a nation of makers to a nation of takers. Thomas Sowell explained that Romney was just
"too nice" and couldn't compete with big, bad Barrack Obama. Republican Vice Presidential nominee Paul
Ryan blamed his loss on "too many" people voting in urban areas, but Mitt
Romney had the most Bubblicious answer of all.
Romney told his supporters that he lost because President Obama promised
"gifts" to blacks, Hispanics, and the young.
Well, I sure hope these gifts arrive by Christmas. Don't tell my kids, but I plan on saving a
pile of dough this year by erasing President Obama's name from the gift tags
and writing-in my own.
Beyond the right-wing
politicians and pundits spinning and scrambling to make themselves look less incorrect
and hoping to retain a shred of significance, there are some real issues that
the Republican Party needs to address if they are to ever return to meaningful
political importance, and not simply be relegated to the dustbin of history,
forever known as that party that once stopped America from moving forward. Why do I care about the future of the Republican
Party? Because they still have a great
deal of influence in what gets done in this country and their core attitudes
and beliefs don't just hurt themselves politically; they can cause real damage
to our entire nation. Any improvement
in either party's vision would result in more mainstream cooperation and a
better America for all. Republicans
simply offer the lowest-hanging fruit.
Foremost, Republicans need to
embrace science, rather than politically corrupted, faith-based belief. I'm not saying to reject God, I'm simply
saying that certain biologic principles and physical laws are pretty-well
documented and have worked in the real world for the past few hundred years, so
why continue to argue with them? It
makes Republicans look as relevant and contemporary as Luddites smashing steam
engines. When I was fourth-grader at
Fairview Elementary School, I decided that, if there was a God, Nature's Laws
must be its language. Simple. Obvious.
No conflict because science reveals God.
Today, listening to Republicans contort science to mesh with their
political or religious beliefs makes me cringe.
Republican politicians dismissing Evolution and Climate Change, or
discussing how certain "lady parts" are individually manipulated by God's Hand
makes normal people think that they are grossly uneducated, and when a
particular party backs so many candidates making bizarre, illogical
proclamations, the toxic political fallout from these brain bombs contaminates
them all. Next Monday in your Daily
Republic, Part 2: The dangers of Plutocracy.
2012
Election post-mortem part 2
This is the
second in a series of Daily Republic articles designed to help the struggling
Republican Party return to mainstream American values. Last week, we discussed the importance of
embracing reality; today's topic: rejecting plutocracy.
Last week I
wrote: "As we have seen
in a recent Daily Republic articles and editorial cartoons, right-wing pundits
like Bill O'Reilly have claimed that the Republicans lost because America,
sadly, has gone from a nation of makers to a nation of takers." Thomas Sowell's latest article echoed that theme, "If
nonwhite voters can only be gotten by pandering to them with goodies earmarked
for them, then Republicans are doomed..." A Daily
Republic blogger offered a similar election analysis: "The Tax Consumers outvoted the Tax Payers." Unfortunately for all those still clinging to
shreds of their tattered right-wing bubble, Republican states overwhelmingly
take-in more federal dollars than they pay in federal income tax, while Democratic
states are net givers. Democratic states
are the ones giving gifts, in the form of our tax dollars, to the poor Republican
states.
None of these Republican pundits are willing to admit that
they lost the election because their candidate and his message rubbed most
voters the wrong way. Most Americans
could not stomach rich Mitt and his plutocratic, rule by wealth, economic
policies. We witnessed an epic, good-versus-evil battle for our electoral souls in this last election with the
Democratic thesis, "We are all in this together" clashing mightily with the
Republican antithesis, "Every man for himself."
State-wide, Californians responded compassionately, selflessly shouldering
the burden of higher taxes, while locally, we Fairfielders showed overwhelming humanity,
passing Measure P with a two-thirds majority.
Right on cue, Hurricane Sandy demonstrated to voters across this country
how we are all interconnected and why politicians from both sides must work
together for our common good. It was
instantly obvious to all observers that the plutocratic, "Survival of the
fittest" approach would not have worked there.
What would the wealthy do if they ruled America? First, they would reduce taxes that affect them most: income taxes, inheritance taxes, capital gains tax, and corporate taxes. With reduced revenues, government at all levels would be diminished along with their ability to enforce regulations protecting our land, water, and air from toxic pollution. Workers' rights would instantly evaporate, and they would cut safety nets like Social Security and Unemployment Insurance. Medicare would become "voucher care." Product liability and consumer financial protections would also disappear. The one growth area would be national defense, because, if you are wealthy, wars are extremely profitable. If you step back and look at the Romney/Ryan economic plans in this plutocratic light, with their tax cuts, government cuts and increased military spending, you will see this vision of an American plutocracy clearly reflected. In my August 20th Daily Republic column, I wrote: "Listen to the rhetoric coming from the rich, their media spokesmen and Republican politicians. They only talk about cutting income tax, corporate tax, dividend tax and tax on interest payments, affecting the wealthy; never about the regressive taxes we normal people pay every day. Consider this: If Republican Paul Ryan's tax proposals are passed, Mitt Romney's income tax rate would drop to almost zero. Who picks up the tab? The 99.9 percent of us living in Fairfields all across this nation." In the board-game, Monopoly, we all know that only one person wins and ends up with everybody else's money and homes. It's not fun when this game is played for real. Republicans, reject your plutocratic platform; return to mainstream.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
